Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Web3 is expensive P2P

netfuture.ch

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 384 posts

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#341

Post by topranks »

rvz wrote: post #147
cowtools wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but you would think that P2P is mostly sufficient for a social media replacement (e.g. PeerTube, Mastodon, etc.). Consensus is only really nessisary for solving problems like payments or namespacing (e.g. namecoin)

> Consensus is only really nessisary for solving problems like payments or namespacing (e.g. namecoin) Those are the only credible use-case(s) that the cryptocurrency folks should be looking at. I can see a few projects surviving like Stellar [0], Ripple (XRP) [1], Algorand [2] and Nano [3], ENS [4], Handshake [5] and Skiff [6]. Unlike the other projects that are slapping blockchain, crypto on to anything they can fi…

I’m familiar with some of these, and yes they are the less scammy and more serious projects.

Bitcoin itself was a genuine attempt at peer to peer cash too.

Problem is the technology sucks and can’t scale. The trade offs are immense. DNS works great and is decentralised in all the meaningful ways. Nano network is currently struggling cos of one script kiddie, and puts everyone’s bank balance out there for the world to see.

Honest intentions and even innovative ideas are all well and good. But replacing the current financial system, or DNS or whatever is a massive technical challenge.

The trade offs in efficiency, scalability, even privacy with blockchain solutions, just to get decentralisation, are far too high.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#342

Post by topranks »

andsoitis wrote: post #3

> P2P never made it to the mainstream; instead, centralized systems still (or, again? even more?) dominate the landscape. So, because it failed, should we try Web3? I doubt it, as it is more likely to fail, due to higher complexity and more dependencies. One major reason decentralized has a hard time is because standards, public protocols cannot be innovated on rapidly. Or at least, new iterations cannot be deployed…

Crypto is funny in this regard.

It has decentralised nodes but the protocol and software development is often very centralised to a small team. Bitcoin’s been upgraded many times.

There’s no meaningful attempt at an open, IETF style approach to reaching consensus on changes to the protocol. Forks are more common.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#343

Post by topranks »

freeone3000 wrote: post #325
Barrin92 wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because there weren't many alternatives. Dropped calls or latency issues were simply the norm and accepted as a trade off for being able to play. The reason companies used to favor p2p was because it was cheaper for them to not run servers. But with people demanding more quality, richer content and consistent and stable connections p2p makes not much sense. Look at some Netflix blogs and how complex their infrastruct…

It's a bad deal for the consumer, though. The complicated Netflix infrastructure is way more robust and stable than SMB+VLC, but I don't need to serve video to millions of people and maintain a complex and rotating streaming library with various publisher contracts determining what shows are available where. I just queue up a show. Division of labor with companies hosting servers for online games makes sense until th…

The history of all this has shown us people will choose convenience over those other concerns 9 times out of 10.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#344

Post by topranks »

ricochet11 wrote: post #145
diego_moita wrote: post #38

Moxie Marlinspike on Web3 [1]: * "People don’t want to run their own servers, and never will" * "A protocol moves much more slowly than a platform" [1] https://moxie.org/2022/01/07/web3-first-impressions.html

Most people wont run their own servers sure, but a large number of people and organisations will (and do). The more meaningful questions are around "how many people do we need to make this work?", there is a limit where the amount of security is good enough (and this is found through adjusting difficulty mining / or reducing block rewards). There is also a lot of work being done on light clients and faster proofs, so…

Problem with crypto is pointing to all these problems of centralised systems (be they web giants, banking system etc). But not having a practical, working alternative.

It’s always “in development”, “around the corner” etc.

Blockchain is hugely inefficient and for the most part has failed to scale meaningfully. Look at popular networks like Bitcoin and Ethereum. If it weren’t for the Ponzi scams most people probably would have moved on.

Zksnarks might be great, but absolutely private transactions have downsides too. Most of us would like our daily purchases to remain private. But do we want to enable unlimited money laundering and tax evasion too?

Problems like that are social and political and technology alone can’t give a solution.

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2022/05/why-this-computer-sci...

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#345

Post by topranks »

chrisco255 wrote: post #134
moolcool wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Universal login You can have universal login with MetaMask, sure, but that functionality isn't reliant on a blockchain. It's decades-old public key cryptography. > Ownership in communities.... The difference is that existing platforms don't let you build on those communities outside of their walled garden But successful internet communities do everything in their power to remain walled gardens. What could they poss…

> You can have universal login with MetaMask, sure, but that functionality isn't reliant on a blockchain. It's decades-old public key cryptography. For sure, you can do PGP, but if it's decades old, you have to ask yourself: Why hasn't public key cryptography taken off as a sign in solution in the same way that email or Google or Facebook have been? Mainly because it's always been a chicken and egg problem for consum…

People only use Metamask to engage in speculative crypto schemes.

Blockchain doesn’t really solve the whole “who is giving me this key” issue with PGP.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#346

Post by bernardlunn »

No, the OP is wrong. Exchanging value (not just content) online without having to trust a third party is a game-changer and that is why Web 3 is a big deal. You have to be P2P aka decentralized to do that. Yes, lots of fluffy marketing hype obfuscating that reality.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#347

Post by rglullis »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #338
rglullis wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since the beginning of the conversation, I am saying that is not about the assets . Why do you continue to center your reasoning around that? It's like worrying about parking lots in a world where self-driving cars are available on-demand. If you don't believe that self-driving cars are ever going to reach that state, fine. But conditional on accepting a premise (web3 games using the blockchain as the basis of the wo…

Maybe it's because the technology isn't meant for being used as a storage medium for 'world logic" and the games that try to utilize it in this manner will be both expensive and terrible... so I give game dev studios and VCs enough credit that they have the common sense not to do stupid things that will fail miserably.

At least you are not talking about assets anymore. Yet:

> technology isn't meant for being used as a storage medium for 'world logic"

Au contraire. Perhaps a better terminology would be "world state", which is exactly the function of blockchains. It's not about the game data. It's just the "save file" for the users. And only about the data that needs to be shared and agreed upon all users.

> the games that try to utilize it in this manner will be both expensive and terrible

Why? There are scaling solutions to handle with this. State channel technology is quite appropriate for this scenario. Or highly specialized roll-ups for the different types of games. The "world state" would be secure in the blockchain, but all the complicated interactions could be done off-chain.

> they have the common sense not to do stupid things that will fail miserably.

Please, go tell that to the execs at Animoca Brands: https://medium.com/star-atlas/animoca-brands-joins-star-atla...

Mind you, I am not saying that this game specifically will be a success. I am also never going to claim that all future games are going to be "on the blockchain". What I am saying is blockchain tech brings disintermediation, and that opens up the possibility of having games not controlled by any single entity.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#348

Post by jl6 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #331
jl6 wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How about an open royalty standard for selling in-game music as part of an indie racing game (and by purchasing the in-game music, I get a portable copy that can be integrated in any application)? That’s a cool idea but I’ve no idea why you would need a blockchain to achieve it.

> That’s a cool idea but I’ve no idea why you would need a blockchain to achieve it. Because otherwise you have gatekeepers and incompatible proprietary standards that don't interoperate or compose.

The music owner would surely be a gatekeeper in either a blockchain-based or blockchainless solution because they would want to vet that the service providers were properly respecting the rights token. And whether or not the standard is open or proprietary seems orthogonal to whether a blockchain is involved.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#349

Post by the_other »

web4 wrote: post #58
the_other wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Game devs could offer transferable content without stores if they stopped using the stores (ok, admittedly, iOS makes this harder). Web3 has nothing to do with this.

it has everything to do with it: 1. you purchase digital items with centralized payment processors like VISA 2. the asset is transferred to your centralized iOS/Steam account. you do not "own" it, the company owns it. if you are banned from Steam, you lose all your games and game purchases. web3 is asking how these two things can be changed to remove the intermediary. the best frame for this is not "web3 ideals are n…

Can you actually see the large game houses collaborating on the standards that would permit item game-interoperability? I’m struggling.

Re: Web3 is expensive P2P

#350

Post by Animats »

Kwpolska wrote: post #299
Animats wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing wrong with p2p. But often it's simply overkill. P2P may have a comeback, because home connections are becoming more symmetrical. DSL usually had relatively low uplink rates, and COMCAST cable was worse. But fiber is usually symmetrical, and 5G wireless typically has an uplink bandwidth of half the downlink rate. This makes P2P more feasible.

Technically, it might be more feasible. But is it really necessary? What actual benefits to users could more P2P bring?

Messaging, chat, video calls, and gaming without the need for a centralized service. All you need is a directory so you can find the other party. Like Skype before Microsoft.
Post reply on HN